= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux comments on Open thread, October 2011 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (308)
Why does the argument "I've used math to justify my views, so it must have some validity" tend to override "Garbage In - Garbage Out"? It can be this thread:
or it can be the subprime mortgage default risk.
What is the name for this cognitive bias of trusting the conclusions more (or sometimes less) when math is involved?
He didn't use math to justify his views. He used it to state them.
Sounds like a special case or "judging an argument by its appearance" (maybe somebody can make that snappier). It's fairly similar to "it's in latin, therefore it must be profound", "it's 500 pages, therefore it must be carefully thought-out" and "it's in helvetica, therefore it's from a trustworthy source".
Note that this is entirely separate from judging by the arguer's appearance.
Or to sound more profound, quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur. With that in mind, the fallacy of dressing up in mathematical clothing might be dubbed the Quidquid Mathematice fallacy, or Quidquid Per Numeros ("whatever (is said) with numbers").